NEW Testament six days of creation

Will we be allegorizing all of scripture on this thread?

 

What I will say of what? Slander? I said nothing of a six day creation. My statement was in relation to Tragic Pizza's discussion of "science" in relation to prescience and pre-scientific. I suggest you withdraw your comments. I don't take to such slander lightly.

 

Well you two came out with guns blazing - but I am not sure what the tiff is about.

 

I would like to see accurate documentation of what I said, and in the context of where I said it in. Did I ever refer to any opinion of a six days of creation--the topic of this thread, and the topic of the other thread. The answer is no. Therefore an apology and retraction is in order. Slander is not permitted here. It is a violation of rules 3 and 4. I believe Gerhard has been warned before.

 

I don't find the topic of a six day creation comical as you inferred. And for the record, yes I do believe that the Lord created the universe in six literal days and rested on the seventh. Your reference to being comical about this was unwarranted and was even seen by Bob as an invitation to a heated argument with the phrase "blazing guns." On the topic stated we probably agree. But why take a statement out of context; a statement that refers to a completely different subject and apply it here in another thread about another subject, and wrongly insuate that I am comical in my attitude about the Word of God. That is very offensive, and insulting--insulting enough to have you reported. My attitude toward the Word of God is nothing but comical; it is reverence.

 

Hello GE,

It certainly looks like your opening post is implying that DHK has somehow claimed or referred to a literal six days of creation (the Genesis account) as being comical. Likewise, if one goes back to the actual thread and reads DHK's full post in its proper context it is clear that he was not speaking about the Genesis account when he spoke of something being "almost comical." He was clearly addressing another BB member's post and use of the word "prescience."

I don't know what point you intended to make by quoting DHK out of context in your opening post in the this thread. Perhaps this is simply a problem with cross-cultural communication (I assume that English is not your first language)?

It is not very clear what point you are trying make or what answer you are seeking for your fellow BB posters to provide. As such I am going to remove your reference to DHK from your opening post. Perhaps you could attempt to rephrase your question without making further reference to DHK and clarify what exactly you are talking about and/or what information you are seeking.

Yours in Christ,

Bible-boy,
Forum Moderator

 

You're trying to force definitions on words that aren't there.

In both the Hebrew and the Greek, the word used in the LXX for Genesis 1:1, can mean create from nothing, or to work with something that's already there.

So, it comes down to context.

I will post reference material at the end, for proof. BTW, although I prefer the BDAG for Greek references, it's reference was several pages long, so I included a different one. But, if it always means create from nothing, then when you make a chicken dinner...

Genesis 1:1 is generally accepted to be the beginning of everything; the ultimate beginning. It does not state how God created the universe, only that “in the beginning, God” (God is eternal) and that He created. There are many who believe that it is only the beginning in reference to man, but the text does not support that. It doesn’t exactly deny it, but the wording most likely represents the ultimate beginning.

The Hebrew word אָרָ. does not necessarily mean that it was created out of nothing, but most likely, that is the intent. It is not, however, limited to mean absolute creation.

ְו is a very important thing to look at. The “waw” can be either conjunctive or disjunctive, depending upon the conditional clauses involved and their relationship to verse 1. What are the three conditional clauses?

1.The earth was without form and void
2.and darkness was upon the face of the deep
3.and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Are these three clauses connected inseparably to verse 1? If yes, and verse 1 is the absolute beginning, then verse 2 would have to describe [FONT=&quot]how [/FONT]God created them (without form and void). This would mean that the beginning of verse 2 would describe the condition of the earth at the time of the action in verse 1. Then, the six subsequent days would describe how God completed the creation, step by step.

So, if ְו is conjunctive, then either God created something imperfect or verse 1 does not describe an absolute beginning. God cannot be perfect and create something imperfect. James 3:11 asks the rhetorical question “Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet [FONT=&quot]water [/FONT]and bitter?”

Therefore, verse 2 should begin with “but”, not “and”. As a matter of fact, if you look in the Septuagint, you will find that the Hebrew scholars who translated the Hebrew to Greek used the word “but”, just as it is used in Matthew 3:7. When used in the disjunctive sense, Genesis 1:2 is not inseparably connected to verse 1: A separation would exist. Verse 1 would be the absolute beginning and verse 2 begins events occurring later. Creation is perfect; six days to restore. (It should be noted here that verse 1 could be a summary declaration of creation followed by a revelation of “how”, but this would not properly follow Hebrew linguistics.)

The expression .הֹבָו .הֹת is translated here as “without form and void”, but elsewhere is used to describe a state as being the result of catastrophe. .הֹ., by itself (translated “without form”) means “in vain”. Isaiah 45:18 says specifically, “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [FONT=&quot]am [/FONT]the LORD ; and [FONT=&quot]there is [/FONT]none else.” He specifically says that He did not create it in such a state.

If we look at the first circumstantial clause in verse 2, the word translated “was” is most appropriately “became”. Not exactly “became”, but more appropriately “it was not this way, then it was”. Even the days “became” (vv 5,8,13,19,23,31) and at the end of the verses, it is, “and it became so”.

If you look at Job 38:4, His angels were present at the creation. The earth was created after the angels, but before the rebellion of Satan. Isaiah 14:12 says, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [FONT=&quot]how [/FONT]art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” Satan was not created evil; he became evil.

Satan wants a world that is religious; it’s conducive to his power now and that of the anti-Christ later. That’s why you see so many false religions: Astrology, palmistry, numerology, etc. Satan does not want to banish religion, he wants to draw people away from Christianity.

Religion is man reaching for God; Christianity is God reaching man.

Scriptures will only support one position:

1.The absolute beginning is in Genesis 1:1
2.The ruin of creation is described in Genesis 1:2a
3.Restoration is performed through Divine intervention over 6 days in Genesis 1:2b-25
4.Rest

To be scripturally sound, absolute creation could not have taken place in six days; only the recreation or restoration could have. The Bible does not tell us how long the creation of the universe took, but the creation of the world as we know it took place in six literal days.

Genesis 1 is Hebrew poetry at its finest, comprising several layers, which can best be expressed in a chiastic structure, based upon the Hebrew:

1.1:1 He (God) Created
2.1:1 God
3.1:1 Heavens and Earth
X.1:2 - 31 Forming and Filling of the Earth
3’. 2:1 Heavens and Earth
2’. 2:2 God
1’. 2:3 He (God) had made

To boil it down, the seven days of creation can be broken down as follows.

1.First, in Genesis 1:1, it speaks of the creation of everything.
2.Then, in 1:3 – 1:13 has to do with forming. Days 1 – 3 use verbs of formation.
3.1:14 – 1:31 has to do with filling. Days 4 – 6 use verbs of filling.
4.Then, it is announced that he finished them.

The creation account in Genesis 1 is accurate and true. However, different interpretations by man that don’t line up with Scripture have muddied the water.

 

The NET Bible has this to say: tn The English verb "create" captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb בָּרָא (bārā') always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, Gen_1:27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Psa_51:10; Isa_43:15; Isa_65:17).
​

Psalm 51:10: Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Isaiah 43:15: I [am] the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.

Isaiah 65:17: For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.


1343 I. בָּרָא (bā∙rā(˒)): v.; ≡ Str 1254; TWOT 278—1. LN 42.29-42.40 (qal) create, i.e., make something that has not been in existence before (Ge 1:1); (nif) be created (Ge 2:4); 2. LN 42.29-42.40 make, form or fashion something out of elements that exist (Ge 6:7; Isa 65:18; Jer 31:22); 3. LN 42.7-42.28 do, i.e., bring about, perform a task, with an emphasis on the uniqueness of the event (Ex 34:10; Nu 16:30; Isa 45:7); 4. LN 90.51-90.55 causes something to happen (Am 4:13); 5. LN 12.1-12.42 (qal act. ptcp.) the Creator, i.e., a title of a supernatural being (Ecc 12:1; Isa 40:28; 43:15+); 6. LN 13.67 unit: בָּרָא לְ־ ־ִי טָהֹור לֵב (bā∙rā(˒) l- -î ṭā∙hôr lēḇ) restore my purity, formally, make for me a pure heart, i.e., bring back to a prior state (PS 51:12[EB 10]+)
Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament). electronic ed. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. DBLH 1343, #6

4472 ποιέομαι (poieomai), ποιέω (poieō): vb.; ≡ DBLHebr 6913; Str 4160; TDNT 6.458—1. LN 90.45 do, make (Lk 13:22); 2. LN 42.7 perform, act., carry out (Jn 13:27; Lk 23:34 v.r.); 3. LN 13.9 cause to be (Jn 19:12); 4. LN 42.41 work, toil (Mt 20:12); 5. LN 42.29 make, create or fashion (Rev 13:14); 6. LN 41.7 behave toward someone in a particular way (Mt 7:12; 1Jn 1:6); 7. LN 37.106 assign to a task (Mk 3:14); 8. LN 57.189 make profit, make money (Lk 19:18); 9. LN 31.2 (dep.) be of opinion (Ac 20:24+) note: see LN index for a fuller treatment of the lexical units.​

Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament). electronic ed. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. GGK44723

 

I agree that the Angels and the rest of the Universe were already here at the start of day-one when God said of this world covered by water "let there be light".

But you are wrong about 2 important assumptions in your statement above.

The truth is -

#1. Lucifer fell before the world was created.
#2. There is NO "RUIN of creation" described in either Gen 1:1 or 1:2.

NOTE: On day FOUR God creates "TWO great lights" the Sun and the moon. What kind of "ruin" are you imagining before that time??
Note: In Gen 3 God tells us about the entrance of sin into this world and Romans 8 tells us that this earthly creation was subjected to death disease and decay as a result of the fall of Adam. What kind of RUIN do you suggest as having taken place on earth before sin?

And as for "incomplete" -- look at Mars, look at Venus, look at the explosions and conditions of space. God made some planets for life and others -- not.

in Christ,

Bob